RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


great_badir -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 1:22:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emogeek
And was he not boasting a while ago about having slept with thousands of women?

EDIT: Which, of course, does not prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.


Not only does it not prove anything, but it also should not have any bearing on this case.

I'm not defending anyone who abuses anyone else (whether that abuse is sexual or otherwise), but to suggest that a celebrity is prone to that sort of behaviour just because they have slept with thousands of people over the years (a claim which can probably be made and substantiated by pretty much any major celeb in their relative field), is a bit naiive.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 1:30:28 PM)

He's made some pretty odd defences of LeVell lately, and someone else he has business links with who was also accused or convicted of this kind of thing. I guess you wonder if he knew the accusations were in the pipeline and he was making the case for his own innocence.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 1:33:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]


I'm sorry but....... [sm=happy07.gif]

Edit: In fact, were you not laughing about the folk that had Jim'll Fix It medals and the drop in value? Sorry again. [sm=happy07.gif]




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 1:55:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

quote:

ORIGINAL: emogeek
And was he not boasting a while ago about having slept with thousands of women?

EDIT: Which, of course, does not prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.


Not only does it not prove anything, but it also should not have any bearing on this case.

I'm not defending anyone who abuses anyone else (whether that abuse is sexual or otherwise), but to suggest that a celebrity is prone to that sort of behaviour just because they have slept with thousands of people over the years (a claim which can probably be made and substantiated by pretty much any major celeb in their relative field), is a bit naiive.


Sorry - my edit was a hasty and poorly worded way of making your first point above. I edited because the original post on it's own would basically have read as "he said this so he must be guilty", which was not the intention.





matty_b -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 2:47:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in.



quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

He's made some pretty odd defences of LeVell lately, and someone else he has business links with who was also accused or convicted of this kind of thing.



[sm=33.gif] [:D]




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 5:02:04 PM)

Just saying, lots of accusations flying, lots of stars in trouble, easy for for people to take sides...as we already know from most reactions, including most of you on here.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 6:19:45 PM)

End of the day, some may be guilty and some probably are. Some may not be guilty. Time will tell when the facts obtained are put before a jury.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 7:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Just saying, lots of accusations flying, lots of stars in trouble, easy for for people to take sides...as we already know from most reactions, including most of you on here.


Really - who? Because assuming a side other than innocent until proven guilty is likely libellous, and any such post should be removed.




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 7:31:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Just saying, lots of accusations flying, lots of stars in trouble, easy for for people to take sides...as we already know from most reactions, including most of you on here.


Really - who? Because assuming a side other than innocent until proven guilty is likely libellous, and any such post should be removed.


You see, our friend Phubbs basically wades into a thread and then pretends people are saying one thing when in actual fact they're saying the opposite.

It's basically his trolling MO.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 7:35:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]

With that and your Rolf Harris painting, I'd say you need to stick with Jaws merchandise for the time being [:D]




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:07:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]




Oh you beat me to it, only a few posts up, didn't have to look far.

You mock my comment as usual but this pretty much sums up my whole point. People immediately react like this along with all the media hype. Just saw more on the news just now, the accusation goes back to 1967! I don't know who's guilty or not but there does seem to be a lot of this happening right now, strange.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:09:42 PM)

Sorry, but that really is nonsense and has nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty, but everything to do with sensible perception. No-one in their right mind, and running a business,. would have someone now charged with rape on their promo materials.

So, again - which posts do you mean?




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:10:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs
People immediately react like this so it's not too much of a push to think a jury could think the same.


Yes, but a jury will be presented with the actual evidence involved.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:11:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]




Oh you beat me to it, only a few posts up, didn't have to look far.

You mock my comment as usual but this pretty much sums up my whole point. People immediately react like this along with all the media hype. Just saw more on the news just now, the accusation goes back to 1967! I don't know who's guilty or not but there does seem to be a lot of this happening right now, strange.


What has the date got to do with it? Is this a general suggestion that some crimes should have shorter statutes of limitations? Or what - a 15yo rape victim should have gotten over it by now, no harm no foul?




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:26:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Sorry, but that really is nonsense and has nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty, but everything to do with sensible perception. No-one in their right mind, and running a business,. would have someone now charged with rape on their promo materials.

So, again - which posts do you mean?



Haha yeah of course not, that post doesn't display a typical knee jerk negative reaction to the media hype. Doesn't show people immediately jumping to conclusions and jumping on the bandwagon.




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:32:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]




Oh you beat me to it, only a few posts up, didn't have to look far.

You mock my comment as usual but this pretty much sums up my whole point. People immediately react like this along with all the media hype. Just saw more on the news just now, the accusation goes back to 1967! I don't know who's guilty or not but there does seem to be a lot of this happening right now, strange.


What has the date got to do with it? Is this a general suggestion that some crimes should have shorter statutes of limitations? Or what - a 15yo rape victim should have gotten over it by now, no harm no foul?




Oh so now it's all done n dusted huh, you already believe he did it by that statement.




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:36:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]




Oh you beat me to it, only a few posts up, didn't have to look far.

You mock my comment as usual but this pretty much sums up my whole point. People immediately react like this along with all the media hype. Just saw more on the news just now, the accusation goes back to 1967! I don't know who's guilty or not but there does seem to be a lot of this happening right now, strange.


What has the date got to do with it? Is this a general suggestion that some crimes should have shorter statutes of limitations? Or what - a 15yo rape victim should have gotten over it by now, no harm no foul?



Oh so now it's all done n dusted huh, you already believe he did it by that statement.


Stop being so obtuse, that's not what she's saying.




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:37:56 PM)

See what I mean?

Not the best shit stirring I've ever seen on the net, though.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:45:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Bill Roache:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

Interesting, considering his crass and ignorant comments about sexual-abuse victims a couple of months back.


I've done a lot of work for him, so much in fact that he's one of my celebrity endorsements.
I have 7000 brochures with his picture in. I think I'm lighting a bonfire tonight. [:@]




Oh you beat me to it, only a few posts up, didn't have to look far.

You mock my comment as usual but this pretty much sums up my whole point. People immediately react like this along with all the media hype. Just saw more on the news just now, the accusation goes back to 1967! I don't know who's guilty or not but there does seem to be a lot of this happening right now, strange.


What has the date got to do with it? Is this a general suggestion that some crimes should have shorter statutes of limitations? Or what - a 15yo rape victim should have gotten over it by now, no harm no foul?




Oh so now it's all done n dusted huh, you already believe he did it by that statement.


That is quite ridiculous, which I'm sure you know. It's specific to your apparent suggestion that a crime that allegedly occurred in 1967 shouldn't be acted upon - no charges laid, no sentence served even if guilty. In short

quote:

the accusation goes back to 1967!


So what? Is that what you meant?

Is that linked to your sexist (and so factually inaccurate it's downright silly) comment above, which you ignored posts regarding, re women in the courtroom?

If it's not, I'd suggest you post with a little more clarity.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:45:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
What has the date got to do with it? Is this a general suggestion that some crimes should have shorter statutes of limitations? Or what - a 15yo rape victim should have gotten over it by now, no harm no foul?




Oh so now it's all done n dusted huh, you already believe he did it by that statement.


Phubbs, unlike my good friend Mr Cat, I am still trying to determine whether you are a (admittedly amatuer) troll or you're just not the best at understanding what people mean through their text. That is so very clearly not what Elab meant. Everyone else can see it. Also, she asked you a question and you ignored it by accusing her of condemning him right away.

Plus, just who the fuck are we taking about? I'm losing track here.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 10:52:18 PM)

Phubbs appears to be suggesting crimes in 1967 are too long ago so we shouldn't do anything to investigate or prosecute them.

I believe there's also an issue where the police haven't popped round to give him full details on the investigation, pre-trial, so he can decide if they're doing the right thing.

He also thinks juries just go with what women say in court.




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:00:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


Phubbs, unlike my good friend Mr Cat, I am still trying to determine whether you are a (admittedly amatuer) troll or you're just not the best at understanding what people mean through their text.


Take a quick visit to the TDKR thread in Favourite Films and I think you'll find it's most definitely the former. [:)]




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:12:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Phubbs appears to be suggesting crimes in 1967 are too long ago so we shouldn't do anything to investigate or prosecute them.

I believe there's also an issue where the police haven't popped round to give him full details on the investigation, pre-trial, so he can decide if they're doing the right thing.

He also thinks juries just go with what women say in court.



I know, but he is talking about a specific person by saying that you 'already believe he did it by that statement' so I was just wondering who he was talking about [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Take a quick visit to the TDKR thread in Favourite Films and I think you'll find it's most definitely the former. [:)]


Deep down inside, I knew.....*sobs*




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:16:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


Phubbs, unlike my good friend Mr Cat, I am still trying to determine whether you are a (admittedly amatuer) troll or you're just not the best at understanding what people mean through their text.


Take a quick visit to the TDKR thread in Favourite Films and I think you'll find it's most definitely the former. [:)]


Dont go there,for your own sanity.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:20:35 PM)

Oh, don't worry, I know better than to go into one of those threads [:D]




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:27:01 PM)

Lol I know exactly what she meant, I already gave you an example of what she asked for and yes everything is so very clearly sexist lol!
Gee lets cover each others backs so when we post we don't ever look wrong haha.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:27:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Phubbs appears to be suggesting crimes in 1967 are too long ago so we shouldn't do anything to investigate or prosecute them.

I believe there's also an issue where the police haven't popped round to give him full details on the investigation, pre-trial, so he can decide if they're doing the right thing.

He also thinks juries just go with what women say in court.



I know, but he is talking about a specific person by saying that you 'already believe he did it by that statement' so I was just wondering who he was talking about [:)]



He was asked to support his claim

quote:

Just saying, lots of accusations flying, lots of stars in trouble, easy for for people to take sides...as we already know from most reactions, including most of you on here.


and is now randomly twisting posts to claim people are saying Roache is guilty as he was called on the statement above. So what I said apparently loosely translates as 'Roache is so totally totally guilty'.

I expect he'll quote this post now, excluding everything but those last 6 words [8|]




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/5/2013 11:29:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Lol I know exactly what she meant, I already gave you an example of what she asked for and yes everything is so very clearly sexist lol!
Gee lets cover each others backs so when we post we don't ever look wrong haha.


No, you didn't. As I already said - another post you may have missed?

If you make a comment (or an extreme assertion) anyone has the right to call you on it. And if you're not talking crap, you'll be perfectly able to.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (2/5/2013 7:20:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Sorry, but that really is nonsense and has nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty, but everything to do with sensible perception. No-one in their right mind, and running a business,. would have someone now charged with rape on their promo materials.

So, again - which posts do you mean?



Haha yeah of course not, that post doesn't display a typical knee jerk negative reaction to the media hype. Doesn't show people immediately jumping to conclusions and jumping on the bandwagon.



The thing is this is the manner in which you seem to be presenting yourself. I have curiosity over how they can pursue a crime which is so old but at the same time I agree that if there is the evidence it needs to be pursued for very important reasons ( a criminal who commits such an act should never feel safe from prosecution especially such crimes as alleged in some of these cases). The problem people are having with your comments is that you appear very dismissive of potential serious crime (at least that is how your comments read although it is highly likely you are not) and that is why you are being challenged.




porntrooper -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (2/5/2013 9:02:43 AM)

Phubbs,

It's all pretty simple. You know when you said this;

lots of accusations flying, lots of stars in trouble, easy for for people to take sides...as we already know from most reactions, including most of you on here.

You were insinuating that everyone had made a decision on the guilt of certain people within these 'Yew Tree' investigations (Saville, Saville and Others and Others, is how they're classifying them isnt it?)

You were asked to give an example, because anyone making accusations of that nature could be potentially causing a serious legal headache for the site. You used Jonson's post as an example, and it's a fucking terrible example of one, 'cos Jonson isn't claiming that Roache is guilty, he is simply saying that the current association with Roache within his work promo is probably pretty misplaced and would be better off removed. Much in the same way ITV will keep Roache out of Corrie while the investigation reaches it's conclusion. It isnt an accusation of guilt, just common fucking sense. I actually think it's a pretty good example of why anonimity for both parties would likely be a good thing, but that's another thread.

Anyway, the thing is, no one has 'taken sides' and no one has made an accusation or suggestion of guilt. Apart from you that is. You see, you seem to be doing a whole lot of victim blaming. I don't just mean specific to these victims here either, but to anyone who has ever been the victim of a crime and has been unable to come forward about it. By suggesting that an alleged victim should be unable to come forward due to the length of time passed, you're limiting how our current justice system works, and it's fucking ludicrous. Why the fuck would time be a barrier to reporting or investigating a crime? Why would the fact a crime was seemingly commited 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago have any bearing on the victims right to come forward and expect justice? Why would time be the thing to stop us as a society wanting to see justice? Hey everyone, HIllsborough was a fucking long time ago, let's just drop it yea, forget about it. Raped whilst in care in the 60's? Fuck that, that was when we last won the World Cup and that was aaaages ago. Move along.

Time should not be the thing to hold back the pursuit of justice for these or any crimes. Thinking anything else is, in my opinion, fucking mental.

As I said on a previous page in response to this (before you decided to get all mysoginistic - I'm not even going to bother with that) no one seems under the illusion that these particular cases (the Saville's, the Harris's, Roache, Lee Travis, Clifford etc) are anything but very, very difficult to prove and investigate. However, given that charges are being brought in some cases, there must be some reasonable evidence available to allow those charges to move forward. The CPS wouldn't pursue it if they didn't think a charge could be presented to a jury. And that's what will happen. in the cases that sufficient evidence is available, a charge will be presented, a court case and legal proceeding will likely follow and a jury will make a decision (guilty or not guilty) based upon that. Until that outcome, we treat any individual as 'innocent until proven otherwise'. And I'll say it again, time should not be a barrier to stop that process happening. It's the very least that we should expect from our current legal system, we would expect it of an alleged crime commited yesterday or an alleged crime from ten, twenty years ago. We should expect it of any alleged crime. It isn't a case of 'get over it'. That is a frankly fucking ridiculous approach to have.

I mean, I don't even want to try to pull apart your other suggestions that the alleged victims in these cases are somehow all in it for the money, another glorious example of victim blaming and making your mind up before knowing the facts.





Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875